Religions on Education committee

[Evil Inky]

Evil Inky

 

when asked what your religion on a form sticking Atheism down is not the same as sticking NONE.

Atheism is a belief system, same as any other Religion...

If so, then not believing in a big orange beach-ball which dispenses sherbet to old ladies, and gives advice on football injuries to girls under the age of ten is a belief system, same as any other religion.

 

Since there are an infinite number of things we don't believe in, we're all members of an infinite number of religions, according to your logic.

[Guest posiedon]

Excellent posts scoots (saved me the bother)

SP

Perhaps wider representation of the Faiths is required, more should be on the Committees if there are people to represent.

With over 3,000 sects among the Christian cult alone, I don't think that's feasible.

It's odd how they all (purport) to follow the same rule book but they can't even agree on the basics.

 

As for your earlier comments re Christian celebrations, as has already been said, no genuine (ie; not stolen) such things exist.

[shetlandpeat]

SP

Perhaps wider representation of the Faiths is required, more should be on the Committees if there are people to represent.

With over 3,000 sects among the Christian cult alone, I don't think that's feasible.

 

I said Faiths and wider representation of them, not just the Christian Faith.

 

As for the celebrations, as per what I said, started from the rising of the planets and satellites. Present day stuff was the meaning. starting from Judaism to the present day. The only way Christianity could get a foot hold was to adopt other beliefs, common knowledge, anyone who visits medieval churches will have seen that.

 

What I said was that there are many Christian Rituals annually preformed.

 

If we are going to go to the point that nothing is really what it is because it came from something else I think it is a bit extreme for it to come from a mutation of a single cell creation of space spider waste from other planets.

Sir

[scoots]

No, sorry, Peat, but what you said was

 

"Christian rituals are still the mainstay of annual events."

 

That's significantly different from

 

"there are many Christian Rituals annually preformed."

 

And as for this new gem

 

"The only way Christianity could get a foot hold was to adopt other beliefs, common knowledge, anyone who visits medieval churches will have seen that."

 

that is total utter rubbish. You do realise you've just said that Christianity is

a hotch-potch of lies and pagan beliefs? Read over what you wrote, think about it. Christianity got a foothold through the fraudulent Conversion of Constantine (now admitted by the Roman Catholic Church), followed by the Edict of Milan, legalising a specific sect of Christianity, which accepted the Old Testament with the New. Then it was through the systematic subjugation, slaughter and annihilation of all other creeds, as well as branches of Christianity, that stood in its way. Literally, not figuratively. The phrase, "Kill them all, let God sort them out", is a paraphrasing of an actual instruction given by a Church representative to their forces in France, during the Albigensian heresy. He ordered them to put every last one of the heretics there to the sword. When they asked how they would know the heretics from the believers, he told them to kill them all, God will know his own. That's but one example of how "Christianity got a foothold". Then there's the extinction of the Irish Church, which continued teaching pre-Nicean Christianity, against the instruction of Rome. Again, their own priests and monks excommunicated, killed along with any congregation that stood up for them and their churches and writings burned (last bit was very important, they couldn't have folk knowing how much they'd re-written and twisted things).

 

The Inquisition, where Jews and women following old methods of medicine (and often worship) were persecuted and tortured in ways the CIA could never dream of doing. These guys would slow roast feet over charcoal fires (Jacques du Molay was one of those who suffered and survived this, at least until they burned him alive). They could open your breastplate abd reach in, massaging your heart by hand to cause maximum pain and suffering. Abd they were priests, given dispensation by Mother Church to do so (the Paolitines, the "Hounds of God").

 

THAT'S how Christianity got a foothold, like any conquering oligarchy, as I said. Not by saying, "Blimey, we might be in trouble here, lads. Better nick

some of the old holy days. We'd like your Yule, and we'll have Easter, and that should sort us out. Whew! That was a close thing, but I think we'll make it!"

 

Bit different from the modern lot, maybe, but if you go making statements like yours, at least think about - or read up on - what you're saying. (Incidentally, the Inquisition was NEVER disbanded by the RC Church. They re-named it. The current Pope was its last boss when he "wrote" those cheques to pay off and silence child abuse victims)

[shetlandpeat]

I go by what I have sen with my eyes. If you visit any old church in England, you will see many Pagan symbols, adopted by the church to gain more Christians.

I do not see this going on at the Council though more Faiths should be represented if there is a demand for it. I get the feeling that OTT explanations have come about my observations.

Now your explanations may explain the pure hatred for Christianity, perhaps this is why then they should not be let into council chambers.

I am not going down the track of proving Christianity is a Hotch-Potch of Lies and Pagan beliefs. For one, it is impossible to prove as there are no material witnesses, two I am not wanting to do that and three we need some harmony between the Religions and Faiths, not more argument.

 

It seems by the way you write it seems to be something that bothers you. Sadly, my writings are not going to change the world, so I am not really caring, shame you are calling my observations untrue. Any good teacher would have enhanced on what knowledge I have and educate. You seem angry about this. Shame as there is little to be done about it.

As long as this sort of dialogue is not used to try to prevent Councils involving more of the Community, if it is, is it verging on Fundamentalism of one sort of another.

 

oh yer, what annual events did I mention. Easter you mentioned and Christmas. There are many annual events with a Christian bias. So, if a church holds an annual event, which it does, and they say mass and pray for the victims of a local disaster, then that is an annual event which is organised by a faith. You seem to split meanings and go with the ones you can tell someone they are wrong about. Try seeing how it was described before you call some one a lier.

[Ghostrider]

I do not see this going on at the Council though more Faiths should be represented if there is a demand for it.

 

If there is demand for it, candidates standing under a religious banner at elections would be voted on to the council.

 

The council is (allegedly) a democratically elected body, which (allegedly and in theory) operates in an impartial manner and serves all in the fairest means possible, regardless of creed, colour, etc etc.

 

Give me one valid reason why one particular clique, with no democratically obtained mandate to support any claim they may try and make, has the right to be automatically granted additional representation and rights in any part of the governing body of the council organisation? Tell me how doing so is not positive discrimination of the clique so afforded, and discrimination against everyone else, not to mention wholly undemocratic, and wholly unfair to every one else.

 

Not very long ago Ministers, declaring themselves as such on the ballot paper, stood for and were elected to the council frequently, and in number. Presumably in doing so the electorate expected those succesful candidates to represent and protect both their practial/physcial intersts and their religious interests. The fact Ministers now and in the recent past have rarely stood for, and have even more rarely been elected to the council, surely is adequate proof that either Ministers these days have little interest in/see the need for any greater representation of religious interests on the council than already exists, or they believe there is inadequate public support to justify it and put it there, even if they do.

[shetlandpeat]

We know, you have already stated all of that.

 

There are times when non elected folk sit on committees, Freemen can have an involvement, not all parish councillors are elected and they can sit on some of the committees if asked.

The council can do this if it is voted for by the folk you voted for and it does not breach the Constitution.

As I have said, you can change this, make a stand. It would be great if more folk got involved with their community and how it was run, as you know, many just sit in the shadows taking pot shots.

Although you think it is unethical, you also have to convince other folk to think the same to perhaps make that change, beit the officers on some sort of wording error or via VoxPops.

I agree that also there are some councillors who should not really be in office. The trouble there again is the lack of representation. A councillor could retain his seat as the victor with 600 votes, even if the other 2600 were spread out amongst the other candidates and the 50 or so percent that do not bother.

To forward the case you want, you would need to be fully informed of the Council Procedure, you can get all of this, if you ask.

 

Again I have said that Councils should have a Cabinet. The system used there has some important committees missing. If SIC had a Cabinet, they would have to have a Scrutiny Committe, I agree this is made up from councillors, though I think that the lack of numbers of Councillors may also be a problem as for the distribution of committee members. Then perhaps an external Scrutiny Committee, Counclillors would need to explain their actions and members of the public can be directly involved.

 

I get what you are saying about voting rights, dodgy that.

 

Perhaps with this devolution of power/responsibility to the people it can be changed. But if it goes wrong, who do you blame, yourself of course, you have the power.

 

Priests are already discriminated against, well in England because of the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 and section nine of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.

 

There are plenty of priests who stand in elections. Though running a busy Parish where you can be the Minister for several church buildings may not allow any time to take part in all that is expected of you as a Councillor, though you could just work on the minimum requirement and turn up for one meeting every 6 months. I am trying t imagine the conflicts of interest as it is often quoted that the Church is one of the biggest land owners in the UK, along with the MOD.

[scoots]

Peat, for the love o' Pete, man! There you go again! You make a statement of "fact", someone calls you on it and you go either, "you're stupid and I'm not playing" or "I'm better than you and I'm still not playing".

 

If you make such bold statements as you do repeatedly, purporting to be accurate and factually correct and clearly haven't looked into what youre writing about, don't be surprised when someone calls you on this. To then say, "Well, I was not really bothered that bothered or interested anyway, you're just an angry hateful person" prohibits debate and discussion and makes you appear childish.

 

Maybe I'm being pedantic. Lord knows you should know all about that. Live by the sword... Personally, I think I'm just challenging someone spouting what they purport to be fact, when it can be clearly evidenced as fiction.

 

I have no hate for the Christian faith. Far from it. However, having been raised devoutly, I had the extreme good fortune to encounter a number of exemplary persons, all bar one Christians. The exception was a rabbi, by the way, and he, my Jesuit friend (one of the other exemplary persons) and I would argue and debate and discuss all sorts of writings, religions, scriptures and history. I came to my own beliefs on God, which my Jesuit friend labelled "The God Machine". I digress.

 

The appearance of pagan figures in Christian churches was not them appealing to pagans to come in. It was a nimber of things, including artisans with strong pagan traditions and superstitions thumbing their noses at the Christian church, or seeking to protect the churches being built from demons and devils (gargoyles are there for the same reason, as well as their original purpose of channelling rainwater away from rooftops). And don't let's get into the biggest culprits of all for these "pagan" reliefs, namely the Templars. They were a monastic Christian order of warrior-monks, doubling as bankers. The biggest, baddest, richest fighting force of their day. I don't think they built these churches to "tempt on pagans to Christ".

 

I am not decrying religion, or Christianity. Once again, I will direct you to my earlier post dealing with the advice from my Jesuit friend. If you can do as he advised and still believe, great. No, honestly, I'm happy for you.

 

But don't expect it to be a dispensation to try and tell me and mine how to live our lives, or learn in schools. That is what I object to here, and have put pen to paper to our parliamentary representatives over. If others feel the same, do likewise.

 

I'd sooner see teachers on the committee. It'd make a damn sight more sense.

[scoots]

BTW Peat, I'm not a teacher, so maybe that explains it, and your statements were untrue, that's why I said as much. And then evidenced it.

 

Come off it:

"oh yer, what annual events did I mention."

 

Erm, I think it was:

"Christian rituals are still the mainstay of annual events."

 

You are the one twisting things now, and playing (very weak) word games, which would be fine if you HAD said:

"there are many Christian Rituals annually preformed."

 

Buuuut... you didn't. Check back if you don't believe angry ol' me.

 

To try and make out now that you were talking about something else is poor. And this confusing ramble about holding a mass on an annual event, "which it does"?? You've lost me. It's neither here not there what they're dedicating the mass to, it's the fact it's a Christian day of annual ritual significance. But I'm betting that, with few, if any exceptions, if you name a significant annual Christian festival, you will find or it can be proven it came from a previous religion and was swallowed (not borrowed) so as to extend control over the

populace of the day. Sheesh, I thought I'd already covered that.

I mean, I'd call the birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus pretty significant and critical to the Christian faith, wouldn't you? After all, without these, he appears just a smart, charismatic after dinner speaker, with a neat line in party tricks.

[the pursuit of oblivion]

Here are some laws that are still on the statute but not normally recognised;

 

It is still technically illegal to eat mince pies on christmas day, unless off course you are trying for a baby.

 

It is still legal for a pregnant woman to relieve herself anywhere she wants.

 

It is a treasonable offence to stick a postage stamp on a letter upside down.

 

Also illegal to be in charge of a cow when intoxicated. Police up here could really improve their conviction rates if they enforced this one.

 

And it is a legal requiremernt to have 25% of a local authority education committee comprised of unelected people who must believe in fairy stories.

 

Now which of these laws is our council choosing to enforce?

[unlinkedstudent]

Tut, tut, tut, tut, tut. Now, now children and come unto me. Play nicely and remember thou shalt turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour. As it would appear that SP has been led into temptation, herewith a packet of Nurofen for that hangover of yours.

[Ghostrider]

@ SP:

 

The practice of co-opting is one I abhor, it smiply leads to the ruling clique adding more of their sympathisers to their number, thus further distorting the impartiality of the entire body in question. On a local council level, it may well be the lesser evil to leaving a seat permanently vacant over the lifetime of that council, and in any case the powers entrusted to local government at that level are such that regardless of how undemocratically weighted the council becomes in any direction, the potential they possess to do "damage" is relatively minimal. That said, it is my understanding that unelected members of local councils are appointed to seats which would otherwise have been filled by democratically elected members, had adequate candidates stood to achieve that.

 

The SIC situation is quiet different in many respects. The position(s) occupied by the religious representative(s) was/were specifically created for them and only them, the electoreate will never at any time have any direct say in choosing who occupies it, They are selected on very narrow criteria (ie. a qualified religious minister), which creates a situation where the appointee will very likely see their role on the board as a single issue promoter (ie. at best to push religion in general, and at worst heavily push their own flavour of religion), and given the nature of how their appointment was made, it would be less than reasonable to expect the person concerned to think their role was intended to be any different.

 

The SIC already has or is about to have a "Cabinet" does it not? What else is this planned/recently created "Inner Sanctum" or "Super Group" that has stirred up a level of controversy the last few months, with allegations of the shortcomings of its own appreant inherent undemocratic structure. The SIC definitely already has, and has had for quite some time a Scrutiny Committee as the frequently reported headline grabbing statements from Wills and Greenflee, usually with rebuttals from Grains, while they were sitting on that committee testifies.

 

I will agree though an external Scrutiny Committee, and an external Discipline Committee is two things the SIC could greatly benefit from. An organisation or individual acting as police, jucge and jury upon itself is never a sound and just process.

[scoots]

"It is still technically illegal to eat mince pies on christmas day, unless off course you are trying for a baby.

 

It is still legal for a pregnant woman to relieve herself anywhere she wants.

 

It is a treasonable offence to stick a postage stamp on a letter upside down.

 

Also illegal to be in charge of a cow when intoxicated. Police up here could really improve their conviction rates if they enforced this one. "

 

[shetlandpeat]

herewith a packet of Nurofen

 

Hey, you saying I have such disorders such as schizophrenia, mania and bipolar depression

 

How very dare you

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/mhra-to-investigate-how-healthcare-products-are-repackaged-2345327.html

 

^^^^^Evidence of my accusation

 

The reason I say Cabinet and Scrutiny Committees is because SIC do not have them with that title.

 

I do see 28 committees and Panels and only 22 councillors with no present co-opted members listed. I am not suprised there are Interest problems.

 

To just meet the Quorum each councillor will have to be on 3.95 committees.

 

Some of the figures that jump out are that you can have a committee of one as with the Sub Committee of the complaints Review and One in the Committee for visiting legalised Police Cells.

 

To have all the committees fully membered up each councillor will have to be on 11.5 committees. Give or take as there are panels that seem not to have any members.

[scoots]

(might explain a few things... )